Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 01, 2014, 09:12:08 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17 Print
Author Topic: How Democrats Fooled California’s Redistricting Commission  (Read 12609 times)
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #200 on: January 14, 2012, 05:42:35 pm »
Ignore

Here are my cleanups of CA-20 and CA-21, minimizing muni chops (for CA-21 only Tulare and Bakersfield, and CA-20, only Fresno and Merced, which I consider quite an achievement), and where possible - erosity. CA-21 is 64.9% HVAP, and CA-20 is 61.6% HVAP. It took a fair amount of trial and error to get there.










« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 05:47:11 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8787


View Profile
« Reply #201 on: January 14, 2012, 09:28:59 pm »

Here's my map for the north region. Due to performance issues with DRA, I'll just show one region at a time. Given that, it's a big help to me when the numbers are grouped by region.

Let me describe my numbering system, since I didn't try to match all the districts with existing ones. First the regions are oriented from north to south, and then subregions within each region, then the districts in each subregion. Numbering is based on the center of population for the area. Here are the number groups:

NORTH REGION
Upper Sacramento (CD 1-2)
Lower Sacramento (CD 3-6)
Central Valley (CD 7-8)

COAST REGION
North Coast (CD 9-11)
San Mateo (CD 12)
Central Coast (CD 13-22)

SOUTH REGION
Bakersfield (CD 23-24)
Los Angeles (CD 25-38)
Socal (CD 39-53)

This is the north region map using just the whole counties. CD 1 needs 2158 people and would add the two eastern block groups from Tehama. CD 7 needs 1019 people and would add one block group from Kings.



Here is the detail for Sacramento county. Two whole districts are within the county and municipalities are preserved to the extent block groups permit.



CD 7 is identical to the view I previously showed for the Merced/Madera/Fresno with 62.0% HVAP. I kept Merced together consistent with minimizing county splits.



Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #202 on: January 14, 2012, 10:57:43 pm »
Ignore

Well, as I said, we just have different mapping philosophies, assuming you think following your metrics should actually be done in real life by the Commission. In this case, I would put West Sacramento with Sacramento even though it crosses a county line, and get rid of that erosity to boot.

Anyway, here are the trend percentages for the old CD's (where I pretend that the Fiorina-Boxer Senate race was another Presidential election), and my map does try to match the new CD numbers with the old ones. It turns out that the McCain percentages are a pretty good baseline (in other words, 46.3%). There are exceptions, but except for the CD's that I have yellowed, which appear to require adjustment, they are either heavily Dem Hispanic CD's where the McCain percentage overstates GOP strength (more Hispanics are voting probably), and some of the Bay area, maybe, but maybe not (Boxer's home turf, and maybe Oakland and SF just had a particular hatred of Bush), but again, these CD's are not in play.

CD's that do require some special attention have been highlighted in yellow, which is mostly snapback country, although in a couple of instances, again maybe McCain's numbers overstate current GOP strength, and the CD's at least are potentially in play, maybe, someday.

« Last Edit: January 14, 2012, 11:10:25 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8787


View Profile
« Reply #203 on: January 14, 2012, 11:25:32 pm »

So if I have Pres 2008 and Gov 2010 from DRA, how should I convert it to PVI?
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13530


View Profile
« Reply #204 on: January 15, 2012, 01:45:26 am »
Ignore

Here's my map for the north region. Due to performance issues with DRA, I'll just show one region at a time. Given that, it's a big help to me when the numbers are grouped by region.

Let me describe my numbering system, since I didn't try to match all the districts with existing ones. First the regions are oriented from north to south, and then subregions within each region, then the districts in each subregion. Numbering is based on the center of population for the area. Here are the number groups:

NORTH REGION
Upper Sacramento (CD 1-2)
Lower Sacramento (CD 3-6)
Central Valley (CD 7-8)

COAST REGION
North Coast (CD 9-11)
San Mateo (CD 12)
Central Coast (CD 13-22)

SOUTH REGION
Bakersfield (CD 23-24)
Los Angeles (CD 25-38)
Socal (CD 39-53)

This is the north region map using just the whole counties. CD 1 needs 2158 people and would add the two eastern block groups from Tehama. CD 7 needs 1019 people and would add one block group from Kings.



Here is the detail for Sacramento county. Two whole districts are within the county and municipalities are preserved to the extent block groups permit.



CD 7 is identical to the view I previously showed for the Merced/Madera/Fresno with 62.0% HVAP. I kept Merced together consistent with minimizing county splits.





Eh, really don't like the San Joaquin to Yolo district. If we can't have the San Joaquin district going into Contra Costa, then it should go into Sacramento County. This does create problems of course since either Sacramento is going to be split, or the 3rd is going to have to take in Yolo using the area just to north of Sacramento to connect the two areas. In return the San Joaquin district takes in the southern part of Sacramento County. If you insist on sticking with these subregions, that is probably the best option as I see it.
Logged
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #205 on: January 15, 2012, 06:55:14 am »
Ignore

That district is an eyesore.

So, can we get this discussion back on track? A California map that the Commission might have drawn, if we were the Commissioners. I'm not signing off on Torie's map until my concerns regarding CA-33/37 and San Diego are adressed, or it's been proven to me they cannot be. If the map is fine with muon and sbane, I consider myself outvoted. I have no further objections to anywhere else, and am ready to help outvote anybody who raises objections anywhere else.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8787


View Profile
« Reply #206 on: January 15, 2012, 08:00:56 am »


Eh, really don't like the San Joaquin to Yolo district. If we can't have the San Joaquin district going into Contra Costa, then it should go into Sacramento County. This does create problems of course since either Sacramento is going to be split, or the 3rd is going to have to take in Yolo using the area just to north of Sacramento to connect the two areas. In return the San Joaquin district takes in the southern part of Sacramento County. If you insist on sticking with these subregions, that is probably the best option as I see it.

I'd like to stick to subregions, replacing them if only they clearly violate other rules. OTOH I could modify my rule to place as many whole districts within a county with one that prefers compactness once at least one district is entirely within the county. I can still require no more than two county fragments, and then I would get this map.

Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #207 on: January 15, 2012, 10:00:54 am »
Ignore

So if I have Pres 2008 and Gov 2010 from DRA, how should I convert it to PVI?

I would just use the 2008 race, with the PVI based on the 46.3% McCain baseline, except that I would  with the yellow highlighted CD's potentially adjust it, particularly if the CD is in potential play. Please don't use the governor's race.  Gubernatorial races are idiosyncratic (and Brown and Whitman were themselves idiosyncratic), and the Fiorina-Boxer race was a much better measure I think of real partisan strength. Boxer and Fiorina were a pretty good generic match - both rather weak candidates. So I used the Senate race as a check on whether CA had so much Obama love, that he overstated Dem strength beyond the generic swing. It turned out, not really, in general, with some exceptions (hey I contributed with my voting pattern to that little trend snapback in CA-48 Tongue ). The Senate race is particularly good, because the swing from Obama to Fiorina of about 7 points, almost precisely matched the national swing from Obama to the share of the House vote the Pubs got nationally in 2010.  
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 11:27:51 am by Torie »Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #208 on: January 15, 2012, 10:04:03 am »
Ignore

That district is an eyesore.

So, can we get this discussion back on track? A California map that the Commission might have drawn, if we were the Commissioners. I'm not signing off on Torie's map until my concerns regarding CA-33/37 and San Diego are adressed, or it's been proven to me they cannot be. If the map is fine with muon and sbane, I consider myself outvoted. I have no further objections to anywhere else, and am ready to help outvote anybody who raises objections anywhere else.

I explained CA-33 to you Lewis (it's a 61.5% Hispanic VAP CD), and you seemed satisfied when you realized that CA-35 was a black pack CD. I don't recall what your issue was with CA-37, or with San Diego - some chatter about making CA-53 more of an erose pencil, and moving out of San Diego City to take Escondido or something? What was it? CA-37 is safely Dem anyway (more-so than in the Commission's map), so perhaps there is no reason for you to fret too much. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 10:16:04 am by Torie »Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #209 on: January 15, 2012, 12:29:18 pm »
Ignore

Yah, I meant 35.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13530


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: January 15, 2012, 12:41:33 pm »
Ignore

I don't particularly like how Torie has drawn the 33rd either. I don't know if it's necessary to make the district so Latino or whether you can create a more compact district that would still have a high Hispanic population with a black influence. If the 33rd doesn't legally need to be drawn like that, it should not. I am fine with the SD map though, since a 50%+ hcvap district can be drawn, though it does lead to some city splits. I don't know if Torie has imperial beach in that Hispanic district. If he does he could try switching it out and putting in the rest of Chula Vista. But I don't think it's such a big deal.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13530


View Profile
« Reply #211 on: January 15, 2012, 12:51:02 pm »
Ignore


Eh, really don't like the San Joaquin to Yolo district. If we can't have the San Joaquin district going into Contra Costa, then it should go into Sacramento County. This does create problems of course since either Sacramento is going to be split, or the 3rd is going to have to take in Yolo using the area just to north of Sacramento to connect the two areas. In return the San Joaquin district takes in the southern part of Sacramento County. If you insist on sticking with these subregions, that is probably the best option as I see it.

I'd like to stick to subregions, replacing them if only they clearly violate other rules. OTOH I could modify my rule to place as many whole districts within a county with one that prefers compactness once at least one district is entirely within the county. I can still require no more than two county fragments, and then I would get this map.



That is much better, and Sacramento isn't split like I feared it would be with a map like that.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8787


View Profile
« Reply #212 on: January 15, 2012, 12:57:10 pm »

That district is an eyesore.

So, can we get this discussion back on track? A California map that the Commission might have drawn, if we were the Commissioners. I'm not signing off on Torie's map until my concerns regarding CA-33/37 and San Diego are adressed, or it's been proven to me they cannot be. If the map is fine with muon and sbane, I consider myself outvoted. I have no further objections to anywhere else, and am ready to help outvote anybody who raises objections anywhere else.

I explained CA-33 to you Lewis (it's a 61.5% Hispanic VAP CD), and you seemed satisfied when you realized that CA-35 was a black pack CD. I don't recall what your issue was with CA-37, or with San Diego - some chatter about making CA-53 more of an erose pencil, and moving out of San Diego City to take Escondido or something? What was it? CA-37 is safely Dem anyway (more-so than in the Commission's map), so perhaps there is no reason for you to fret too much. Smiley

I thought the issue in SD was whether or not to link to Imperial (correct me if I'm wrong Lewis). I put up a concept plan and you convinced me at the time that the percentages didn't warrant the split below.



As I plow through the minority group submittals, I'm a bit worried. They were OK with a CD from SD to Imperial, but expected the Perris area to be in a section 2 district. They did that with a nasty looking CD from Perris to SanB. The commission found "strong evidence of racially polarized voting" in Riverside and that the Gingles conditions were met there. Curiously they only made a 50.1% HVAP district in Riverside, but comments from minority groups lead me to think that a section 2 challenge is not impossible there. I have conversion factors for CVAP from ADs in the various Socal areas, so I'm going to take a fresh look with real data.

Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #213 on: January 15, 2012, 01:24:31 pm »
Ignore

Hey, my Riverside CD is over 50% HVAP - now - too, materially increasing the odds the it will elect an Anglo Dem in lieu of an Anglo Pub. Tongue  It won't be electing an Hispanic. God bless the VRA!  If Maldef wants more, they will have to go to court. When they lose, hopefully this sort of thing won't "have" to be done in the future.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 01:27:20 pm by Torie »Logged

Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #214 on: January 15, 2012, 01:39:57 pm »
Ignore

I don't particularly like how Torie has drawn the 33rd either. I don't know if it's necessary to make the district so Latino or whether you can create a more compact district that would still have a high Hispanic population with a black influence. If the 33rd doesn't legally need to be drawn like that, it should not. I am fine with the SD map though, since a 50%+ hcvap district can be drawn, though it does lead to some city splits. I don't know if Torie has imperial beach in that Hispanic district. If he does he could try switching it out and putting in the rest of Chula Vista. But I don't think it's such a big deal.

Imperial Beach is in the Hispanic CD, just like it is in the Commission's map. If you switch it out, for the rest of Chula Vista, the Hispanic % goes down.

If a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside needs to be drawn, than a 61.9% HVAP CA-33 needs to be drawn. If you play with Carson, the Hispanic percentage goes down, as well as the black percentage in CA-35. So no, that makes no sense. You could chop Carson, but the map will still be ugly, and still dilute, with CA-33 also getting more Anglos. Oh, the horror, the horror! We could substantially play with the map, and get a more contiguous Hispanic CD, with a materially lower percentage, but that would shove the Beach Cities CD into a more competitive status. Do you want to go there?  Tongue

You mess with me anymore, and I will sic Maldef on you!

Are we done now?
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 01:46:58 pm by Torie »Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8787


View Profile
« Reply #215 on: January 15, 2012, 01:47:43 pm »


I thought the issue in SD was whether or not to link to Imperial (correct me if I'm wrong Lewis). I put up a concept plan and you convinced me at the time that the percentages didn't warrant the split below.



As I plow through the minority group submittals, I'm a bit worried. They were OK with a CD from SD to Imperial, but expected the Perris area to be in a section 2 district. They did that with a nasty looking CD from Perris to SanB. The commission found "strong evidence of racially polarized voting" in Riverside and that the Gingles conditions were met there. Curiously they only made a 50.1% HVAP district in Riverside, but comments from minority groups lead me to think that a section 2 challenge is not impossible there. I have conversion factors for CVAP from ADs in the various Socal areas, so I'm going to take a fresh look with real data.

Using my concept districts with real 2010 data I can conclude the following. An Imperial-Perris district with over 50% HCVAP is possible, but an SD only 50% district is not. The best I could get there was about 45% HCVAP (56% HVAP).

The commission's legal analysis did not consider the Imperial-SD district a section 2 district, I presume due to the LULAC v Perry analysis that the communities are too widely separated to count as compact. SD is section 2 for the AD but not for a CD because the population doesn't reach 50% HCVAP. They might have drawn the same conclusion about an Imperial-Perris district. If that's true, then either of the links is equally valid from the VRA.

The commission recognized section 2, but drew a 50.1% HVAP district, implying a lack of population in a compact area to draw something more. The minority groups certainly wanted more, but Torie's district matches the commission numbers so its legal status should be no worse. I suspect MALDEF will go to court to contest a number of areas, so we'll see what the judges say.
Logged


Partial solar eclipse of April 15, 2014 with a cloud and large sunspot.
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #216 on: January 15, 2012, 01:51:37 pm »
Ignore

Yes, if I were not such a "responsible" Commission member, we would be litigating a lot of things with Maldef. I want to go to court. I want CA to be before SCOTUS. Bring it on!

My CA-42 is 50.3% HVAP by the way, 20 basis points "better."  Given that, plus my masterwork with CA-33, I'm Maldef's best friend come to think of it - at least until such time as I gut them in court. Smiley
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 01:57:22 pm by Torie »Logged

Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13530


View Profile
« Reply #217 on: January 15, 2012, 02:06:32 pm »
Ignore

I don't particularly like how Torie has drawn the 33rd either. I don't know if it's necessary to make the district so Latino or whether you can create a more compact district that would still have a high Hispanic population with a black influence. If the 33rd doesn't legally need to be drawn like that, it should not. I am fine with the SD map though, since a 50%+ hcvap district can be drawn, though it does lead to some city splits. I don't know if Torie has imperial beach in that Hispanic district. If he does he could try switching it out and putting in the rest of Chula Vista. But I don't think it's such a big deal.

Imperial Beach is in the Hispanic CD, just like it is in the Commission's map. If you switch it out, for the rest of Chula Vista, the Hispanic % goes down.

If a 50% HVAP CD in Riverside needs to be drawn, than a 61.9% HVAP CA-33 needs to be drawn. If you play with Carson, the Hispanic percentage goes down, as well as the black percentage in CA-35. So no, that makes no sense. You could chop Carson, but the map will still be ugly, and still dilute, with CA-33 also getting more Anglos. Oh, the horror, the horror! We could substantially play with the map, and get a more contiguous Hispanic CD, with a materially lower percentage, but that would shove the Beach Cities CD into a more competitive status. Do you want to go there?  Tongue

You mess with me anymore, and I will sic Maldef on you!

Are we done now?

Never mind on the Imperial Beach thing. It should be put in the Hispanic district and I have done that as well. As for CA-33 (which is CA-35 in my map), I drew a district that is about 54%HVAP and 21%BVAP. And the 33rd I drew is about 38.9%BVAP, which may be enough to get to 50%BCVAP, as most of the rest of the people in that district are latino. And I ended up with a much nicer looking map. Take a look.

Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #218 on: January 15, 2012, 02:19:16 pm »
Ignore

You are going to cut an "Hispanic" CD down from 61.9% HVAP (close to if not at 50.0% HCVAP) to 54% HVAP? And cut the black CD to 38.9% BVAP down from 44.6% BVAP (percentages destined as to the blacks to continue to decline over time)? I don't think so. And get a bodyguard sbane, because Maxine Waters will be looking for you.

But hey, I can preserve the black CD at my percentages, and draw a more contiguous CD off to the west with a materially higher HVAP than your anemic number, while making the Beach CD materially more Pubbie. Interested? Pity that the legal risk seems rather high.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 02:26:11 pm by Torie »Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #219 on: January 15, 2012, 02:28:09 pm »
Ignore

I thought the issue in SD was whether or not to link to Imperial (correct me if I'm wrong Lewis).
My issue is/was with which nearby nonwhite areas I want included in the National City - Imperial district and which ones not, actually (as it can't take all of them), and with the character of the 53rd which in its current form is at least arguably a minority influence district. Two things are happening here -
one is an old pet peeve of mine carried over from the last map that the desert parts of Riverside, and definitely Coachella town and I guess Indio as well though it seems to be changing to the suburban, ought to have been in the Imperial district from the start. (And Blythe in the High Desert district really - though it's barely majority Hispanic now, one of the many things I've finally looked at just now, as well as once again failing to get Calif. to work for me.) It helps that a huge part of the Riverside high desert's population is a prison, of course. Such places belong in the low turnout neighboring district, if available. Basically none of these people are represented at all at current - they don't share much interest with the areas they're paired with. (The Hispanic minorities that exist in those areas never crossed my mind, really. Certainly I wasn't aware that there's a serious issue with Perris.) And because of my Native American fetish, I can't help of thinking of those little reservations that dot desert San Diego. Though I think they're outnumbered by the Whites in the area no matter how widely you define the eastern suburbs (which I certainly don't want the district to impede on.) That last is a very minor point though.

-and the other was my impression, which after studying maps and all was only to, shall we say a clearly under 50% degree, correct, that Torie's map there was more aimed at whitewashing the 53rd (and, I suspected, trying hard to put it into play) than at improving Hispanic chances in the 51st. But actually, while he made the boundary there more erose in SD, it's not by all that much - the current district extends further north than I recollected. (The 51st's prong down the eastern edge of the 53rd's SD portion is new, though, and I suppose grabs some Whites.) And Coronado - I vaguely thought so but wasn't sure - and Imperial Beach - I never would have guessed. Actually, I didn't even know it was mostly White, or that Coronado is so unHispanic - were in the 51st til now. (So why did Torie move Imperial Beach in now? Reducing erosity? Ran out of easily grabbable Hispanic sections of downtown SD? No, this is not a rhetorical question, just a mix of a real question and, well, just a musing.)
Yes, I knew the 51st' current retiring Congressman is actually White. No, I didn't know nearly enough about his primary challenges, and might have been less certain then. (Fascinating. Though the conclusions they offer are rather mixed. Fun fact: in the 2006 grudgematch against Juan Vargas, Filner easily won Imperial, the county providing a sizable portion of his margin of victory, despite the spoiler third man in the race Danny Ramirez being from Calexico. But in 2008, when Ramirez was the only challenger, Filner crushed him in SD but actually lost Imperial. Juan Vargas is the early front runner for the seat now that Filner is running for mayor of SD, and appears to be an individual that should be kept as far from any legislative body as possible, though that's neither here nor there.)
It should be pointed out here that the 51st is 58.odd% Hispanic VAP as is, so probably not far off majority CVAP and definitely plurality CVAP by a comfortable margin, and actually needs to lose population, not gain. It needs to lose right about as much as the 53rd needs to gain, actually, 40oddK people. And the 53rd is not majority White total population now, though it was in 2000 and Torie's version seems to be, and is actually not so far off ceasing to be majority White in VAP, where Torie drove it all the way back up to 60%. A lot of the action in that respect must be on the borders with the other SD CD's, actually. I haven't looked at the Commission's maps of the area since just after they were created, but I remember being not impressed either.
So what I felt should happen, but knew I would need the app to see if it's really possible, is add those heavily Hispanic areas that exist outside the rural parts of the district (and Coachella is 97% Hispanic. There's really no excuse whatsoever for leaving it lie just outside a VRA district one part of it it has clear ties to), and whatever of the southern suburbs it can absorb - not Coronado, as I know now - and retreat as far as possible out of the central sections of SD, and create a still safely Hispanic 51st and an unequivocally minority influence, under 50% Anglo VAP, 53rd. And if that means Susan Davis safe forever and some other Hispanic than Vargas taking over from Filner, so much the better.

Meh. This whole post is an erose mess. And while I was typing five new replies have been posted.
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #220 on: January 15, 2012, 02:36:24 pm »
Ignore

You are going to cut an "Hispanic" CD down from 61.9% HVAP (close to if not at 50.0% HCVAP) to 54% HVAP? And cut the black CD to 38.9% BVAP down from 44.6% BVAP (percentages destined as to the blacks to continue to decline over time)? I don't think so. And get a bodyguard sbane, because Maxine Waters will be looking for you.

To hug and kiss him. As, in practice, he preserved the additional Black opportunity CD you're gutting. (In favor of a Hispanic, of course, which makes the whole thing's VRA merits much more complicated.) No one (no Black politician) wants a 40%+ Black CD in California. They didn't want anything of the kind when they could pretty much draw their own district 10 years ago, anyway.

Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #221 on: January 15, 2012, 02:36:27 pm »
Ignore

Yes, it is unreadable Lewis, and no, I did not look at partisan percentages, or have them in mind at all, as I drew the map. In fact, it broke my heart when I realized that the CA-33 thing put the Beach Cities CD out of reach for the Pubs (I already knew almost by heart the partisan lay of the land there). The obsession with Imperial Beach is just strange - really.  Anyway, I did what the commission did. I was looking at their map when I drew that the SD Hispanic CD. It seemed reasonable to me.

The Commission only gave the blacks one CD too, and given how fast the black percentages are eroding, I really doubt they want to dilute themselves down like that. If they do, they're foolish.

Why are we arguing over this black v brown thing again?  It doesn't mean a damn from a partisan standpoint.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 02:42:35 pm by Torie »Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #222 on: January 15, 2012, 02:40:42 pm »
Ignore

The obsession with Imperial Beach is just strange - really.  
I added all those words there just to make it clear I'm not obsessed with it in any way. I'm obsessed with Coachella and with downtown SD, actually. I wanna have my cake and eat it too, or have it shown that it can't be done. Tongue
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27430
United States


View Profile
« Reply #223 on: January 15, 2012, 02:45:22 pm »
Ignore

You are not getting Coachella - period.

I still don't understand your issue with downtown San Diego. What partisan objective are you after in San Diego, just so I know what it is to reject. Thanks in advance.

« Last Edit: January 15, 2012, 02:49:09 pm by Torie »Logged

only back for the worldcup
Lewis Trondheim
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 58778
India


View Profile
« Reply #224 on: January 15, 2012, 02:53:35 pm »
Ignore

Why are we arguing over this black v brown thing again?  It doesn't mean a damn from a partisan standpoint.
Because the district is ugly. Unequivocally unnecessarily ugly if the issue can be solved without diluting the Hispanic CD too far, unnecessarily from the point of view of its Black neighbor district no matter what. Certainly not for partisan reasons.
I still don't understand your issue with downtown San Diego. What partisan objective are you after in San Diego, just so I know what it is to reject.
Probably none, though I'm not entirely certain of that.
You are not getting Coachella - period.
Why not?

I recognize it would probably require wrenches to all of outer SoCal... is that the only reason?
Logged

"The secret to having a rewarding work-life balance is to have no life. Then it's easy to keep things balanced by doing no work." Wally



"Our party do not have any ideology... Our main aim is to grab power ... Every one is doing so but I say it openly." Keshav Dev Maurya
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... 17 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines